Picture of the Week 2/11/2008

armydriver · Post by **armydriver** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:55 am

Great photo and a beautiful truck. The addition of the medical bags and other accounterments really help frame the truck itself. Thanks.

KEVINABR · Post by **KEVINABR** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:41 pm

very nice truck from the 514

dr deuce · Post by **dr deuce** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:16 pm

Purdy!

daveyboy · Post by **daveyboy** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:22 am

Nice truck.

However, how "authentic" is a weapon mounted truck attached to a medical company?

Rules of Geneva convention apply I beleive where non-combat personal are to be un-armed?

Isnt that corrrect?

Not knocking the truck! By all means it beuatiful.. And not klnoclking the impression of medical role, I love the medical combat roles !!

Just wondering, or stating how accurate this might NOT be?

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:13 pm

A gun mount does not make a vehicle armed, any more than a winch makes it a recovery vehicle. This has been discussed before. Do you have evidence to show this "practice" is incorrect? I'm not so sure that the Geneva Convention of 1929 the one in force thro' WW2, is specific regarding arming of non-combatants anyway.

With 1/2 million GMC's in the combat theatre and the pressures in the ASCZ I think it very probable it happened, more of a concern is that water bucket.

KEVINABR · Post by **KEVINABR** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:45 pm

anyway they would have used any truck armed or not !!!!!!

daveyboy · Post by **daveyboy** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Do you have evidence to show this "practice" is incorrect?

no.. I do not.

More important, DO YOU have evidence of this being CORRECT?

whatever....

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:36 am

No I DO NOT have evidence to show it is correct practice..............but I do have pictures to show IT HAPPENED.

daveyboy · Post by **daveyboy** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:32 pm

well, post a few pix!

I am sure we would all love to see period photos of this.

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:16 pm

Daveboy. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, whether it’s the armed medic or the armed transport, that’s of concern to you.

Either way a visit to the excellent site of either Alain Batan or David Steinert should answer all your questions. Further informative reading and claimed first hand accounts can be found on the likes of WW2f.com and other ww2 forums.

It is also easy to demonstrate that Fallschirmjager medics carried weapons, as did Allied medics. What may be of confusion is that this was frequently done covertly, the weapon carried in a pocket or inside the blouse.

The Hague Convention as distinct from the Geneva Convention states;

Non-belligerents are prohibited from engaging in combat and in other forms of direct action against the enemy, except in self-defense

snow man · Post by **snow man** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:52 pm

I don't have a dog in this fight

but i have looked at the photo and all i see is a rifle rack in the cab and a gun ring with no gun mounted . Even the guy standing appears to be without a side arm and rifle .

Hammerhead · Post by **Hammerhead** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:43 am

Great looking truck and overall impression.

I wish there was something like the 514th organization around here to convoy with!

On the idea of armed vehicles used in medical units I believe they would use whatever was available. The important thing was to have transportation to get the casualties to help as fast as possible. Like Karoshi stated, there is ample photographic evidence to show this. I recently saw a photo of a German unit using Sd Kfz 251's with Red Cross flags draped over the hood transporting casualties.

I also saw just tonight in a book a CCKW with a Red Cross flag draped over the hood in France 1944.

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:46 am

References to armed personel can be found in many personal accounts. Stuart Mawson in his book "Arnhem Doctor" begins :

Monday 18th September 1944:
I was a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps.....//......Five-thirty ! I looked again. Why so early.........//.....Of Course! The big kit-bag, haversack braces and pouches, water bottle and pistol lying on the floor, the clean underware and shirt on the chair, I had put them out the night before.

He was about to jump into Arnhem. A British account I know, but they too were "bound" by the same conventions.

Closer to home for you guys across the pond is the account of medical Corpsman 3rd Platoon, Company G, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, Okinawa Jima, 2 May 1945, Robert E. Bush .

Rather than indicte Bush for war crimes under the Convention law, President Truman saw fit to awarded him a Congressional Medal of Honour for his armed action.

mick.wilson · Post by **mick.wilson** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:17 pm

Hammerhead wrote:Great looking truck and overall impression. I wish there was something like the 514th organization around here to convoy with!

When are you coming over then, we are always short of drivers

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ9bjkhyttc

Mick

Canadian Gunner · Post by **Canadian Gunner** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:27 pm

I sure hope medics have arms or they're gonna have a hell of a time lifting a litter!

Medics and doctors ARE armed. The Geneva Conventions do not outlaw this as they are soldiers. The difference is that they bear arms for self defence (which includes defending their patients). Who do you think stands sentry in medical units? They don't get an infantry unit attached just to do the sh*t jobs like sentry!

An interesting point is that ambulances are not fitted with a trailer hook. Ambulances and vehicles marked with the red cross may only transport patients rearwards and medical supplies forwards. Supply trucks carrying food and general stores for a medical unit may not display the red cross.

Cheers! Mike

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:09 am

Some interesting input there Mike, thanks. Your comment on the litter bearer seem..........armless.

But could you confirm that your supply truck comments relate to practice within the WW2 time frame, rather than to "later" protocols, for I have several period pictures of cargo transport hauling trailers and displaying the geneva cross....and hey I aint trying to start WW3 here....I really am just interested in trying to sort myth from established practice.

Out of respect to the many vets our re-enactment group "entertain" we TRY to get the period feel right. If we demonstrate a bad practice we are the first that wish to know.

Thats why I STILL have a canvas water bucket.

Colin

Canadian Gunner · Post by **Canadian Gunner** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:29 pm

Hi Karoshi:

One of the courses I teach in Africa is the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which might sound like a typical oxymoron but is actually an important part of a professional soldier's education.

The LOAC include the Geneva Conventions and many other international agreements designed to limit the excesses of combat and protect non-belligerents, heritage sites, etc, etc. Stuff like child soldiers and the treatment of refugees are touchy subjects which we have to examine and discuss with our students from across Africa.

As part of all this I have developed some good contacts in the ICRC and the UN. I will ask one particularly crazy Aussie if he can shed light on the evolution of the use of the red cross/crescent/lion/sun/crystal through history. Its a topic near and dear to him as he is the communications director for the ICRC in eastern Africa.

All the rules may say one thing but photographic evidence of actual practices says another!

One thing to be careful of: the ICRC is becoming very protective of its symbols due to misuse in many lands. Like Rolls Royce, they have high priced lawyers who are clamping down on unauthorised use. Thats why civilian ambulances are no longer permitted to display the cross... they must use another symbol. Here in Nord Amerika most civ ambulances now sport a blue six armed cross.

No one has taken re-enactors and antique vehicle collectors to task yet but it would only take one or two a**holes in our hobby to cause a blanket prohibition against displaying the red cross.

The ICRC website is: http://www.icrc.org/eng

Information about the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law are at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.ns ... onventions and http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns ... l_in_brief

The use of the symbols is discussed in great detail.

Hope this helps and I'll follow up on the historical use with my chum.

Cheers! Mike

Karoshi · Post by **Karoshi** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:19 pm

Mike I'm well acquainted with the sensitivities of the Geneva Cross and the recent and on-going high profile cases involving the ICRC, CICR, IFRC, ARC, CRC, and the use of their symbol(s).

I too have taken a keen interest in the history of the symbol as well as the development of its alternatives, like the Red: /crescent /lion /sun /crystal /palm /archway /lamb /rhinoceros / flame /shield and even the Swastika.

However in the context of my CCKW and the living history events I attend, I'm focused on the WW2 time frame, and maintain that my vehicle accurately portrays a cameo of events of that time.

This forum expressly bans political statements, and I am anxious not to offend our host, however in the interest of education and out of respect for the immense good work done by the CICR, I think factual and educational comment regarding this much misunderstood symbol should be encouraged.

If the portrayal of my vehicle displaying the Geneva Cross has caused offence I apologize, but in the context of living history and raising awareness of those events, I see no harm.

Colin

Canadian Gunner · Post by **Canadian Gunner** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:27 pm

Hi Colin:

Like you I have nothing but respect for the ICRC and its good work around the world.

I get the feeling I may have inadvertently touched one of your 'buttons' and certainly didn't mean to. I have seen the 514th at a couple of events in the UK (I frequently stage through on my way back and forth to Africa) and have been most impressed with the efforts your group makes to get their portrayal of the past as accurate as possible.

I especially like that you depict mundane things like tyre changing and delivering stores... reading your posts about buckets, I think we both have issues with some of the silly things we see. In my case its the "elite" unit thingie (I think we as collectors probably have more vehicles painted up for the 101 or 81 Airborne than either division ever had on strength!

) I spent four years in Canada's SSF as a young fella and have a soft spot for elite soldiers, however, they represent a small portion of the bigger story which often gets ignored, so THANK YOU for highlighting the "truckers" and the "sock-counters" and the "pill-pushers" (all respectful nicknames) whose story doesn't get told well.

I too have a vehicle displaying the red cross in my collection and have a good friend who depicts a medical unit in Korea with his Dodge M43 Ambulance. We frequently discuss the sensitivities of using the symbols of the ICRC and we worry that sooner or later some goof (I didn't mean to include you in that category) will roll his restored ambulance through a red light with the siren blaring, cause an accident and thats when we will all suffer the fall out.

A number of years ago we had a chap drive his lovely turretted Ferret (complete with de-activated Browning GPMG) up onto Parliament Hill. He wasn't thinking and didn't work through the possible consequences... well, the Mounties went absolutely spare! Pistols drawn, police cars forming cordons, the lot... just weeks before, a distraught man had driven his car up the front steps and smashed the doors in!

Needless to say there was a long period of worry as members of Parliament questioned why citizens should be driving about the Houses of Parliament in surplus army "tanks". Thankfully we collectors had a secret weapon in that one of the MPs also collects Universal (Bren Gun) Carriers. He managed to deflect the potential storm and we in Canada can still enjoy our green hobby... the potential for some very severe legislation restricting private ownership of armoured vehicles was enormous; all because a chap didn't think before doing someting silly in his "little tank". Parliament Hill is now closed to non-official vehicular traffic.

Anyway, I drooled on long enough. Suffice it to say that I admire what you are doing and have taken no offence at all, quite the opposite.

Cheers! Mike

The GMC CCKW

Picture of the Week 2/11/2008

Picture of the Week 2/11/2008

Medics and arms

Geneva Conventions and actual practices

Geneva Cross & others

The ICRC